Jump to content

Walks Are Not as Good as Hits


gpolee

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply
On a more serious note, here's a table that shows the linear weights for each occurence each year, reproduced from this article:

http://blogs.thescore.com/mlb/2013/08/08/fogging-the-measure-linear-weights-via-base-runs/

The first column after the year is for a single (.449 in '12). The fifth column after the year is for a walk (.316 in '12).

2012	.449	.715	.967	1.363	.316	.332	.193	.172	-.233	.161	-.067	-.228	-.103	.057	.135	-.4182011	.450	.715	.967	1.363	.316	.332	.194	.172	-.233	.159	-.069	-.228	-.104	.056	.133	-.4192010	.455	.730	.992	1.377	.316	.333	.189	.179	-.242	.163	-.070	-.233	-.106	.059	.140	-.4342009	.461	.734	.994	1.374	.324	.341	.198	.177	-.240	.172	-.074	-.246	-.110	.054	.134	-.4352008	.464	.744	1.009	1.382	.324	.341	.195	.181	-.245	.173	-.074	-.247	-.111	.057	.139	-.4432007	.471	.752	1.020	1.385	.329	.346	.199	.183	-.247	.178	-.076	-.254	-.113	.056	.139	-.4482006	.470	.746	1.009	1.379	.331	.347	.203	.180	-.243	.181	-.076	-.257	-.113	.054	.135	-.4422005	.461	.734	.992	1.373	.324	.341	.198	.177	-.239	.171	-.073	-.245	-.109	.055	.135	-.4332004	.466	.742	1.004	1.378	.327	.344	.200	.179	-.242	.179	-.075	-.254	-.111	.055	.136	-.4392003	.466	.745	1.010	1.382	.325	.342	.196	.181	-.245	.176	-.074	-.249	-.110	.058	.139	-.4422002	.462	.740	1.003	1.380	.322	.339	.193	.180	-.244	.172	-.073	-.244	-.109	.058	.139	-.440

So a walk historically has been worth slightly more than 2/3 of a single.

This post gives me a headache.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a more serious note, here's a table that shows the linear weights for each occurence each year, reproduced from this article:

http://blogs.thescore.com/mlb/2013/08/08/fogging-the-measure-linear-weights-via-base-runs/

The first column after the year is for a single (.449 in '12). The fifth column after the year is for a walk (.316 in '12).

2012	.449	.715	.967	1.363	.316	.332	.193	.172	-.233	.161	-.067	-.228	-.103	.057	.135	-.4182011	.450	.715	.967	1.363	.316	.332	.194	.172	-.233	.159	-.069	-.228	-.104	.056	.133	-.4192010	.455	.730	.992	1.377	.316	.333	.189	.179	-.242	.163	-.070	-.233	-.106	.059	.140	-.4342009	.461	.734	.994	1.374	.324	.341	.198	.177	-.240	.172	-.074	-.246	-.110	.054	.134	-.4352008	.464	.744	1.009	1.382	.324	.341	.195	.181	-.245	.173	-.074	-.247	-.111	.057	.139	-.4432007	.471	.752	1.020	1.385	.329	.346	.199	.183	-.247	.178	-.076	-.254	-.113	.056	.139	-.4482006	.470	.746	1.009	1.379	.331	.347	.203	.180	-.243	.181	-.076	-.257	-.113	.054	.135	-.4422005	.461	.734	.992	1.373	.324	.341	.198	.177	-.239	.171	-.073	-.245	-.109	.055	.135	-.4332004	.466	.742	1.004	1.378	.327	.344	.200	.179	-.242	.179	-.075	-.254	-.111	.055	.136	-.4392003	.466	.745	1.010	1.382	.325	.342	.196	.181	-.245	.176	-.074	-.249	-.110	.058	.139	-.4422002	.462	.740	1.003	1.380	.322	.339	.193	.180	-.244	.172	-.073	-.244	-.109	.058	.139	-.440

So a walk historically has been worth slightly more than 2/3 of a single.

Interesting that a HBP is slightly more valuable than a walk. Is that because the guy hit by the pitch is more likely to be pissed and steal second?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Sorry. :) In the preview, it scrolled left and right as well as up and down. So the last three columns weren't jumbled with the first three columns. And the headings didn't paste in for some reason.

I wasn't really talking about that. I just wasn't prepared to take anything seriously in this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...